On 29 Apr 2004, James Bottomley wrote:> On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 01:10, Hugh Dickins wrote:> > That's right, arm and parisc do handle them differently: currently> > arm ignores i_mmap (and I think rmk was wondering a few months ago> > whether that's actually correct, given that MAP_SHARED mappings> > which can never become writable go in there - and that surprise is> > itself a very good reason for combining them), and parisc... ah,> > what it does in Linus' tree at present is about the same for both,> > but there are some changes on the way.> > Actually, as I said before, parisc is reworking the cache flushing stuff

Yes, not forgotten, that's what I meant by saying some changes on the way.

> in our tree. As things currently stand we've altered our map allocation> so that we now treat i_mmap no differently from i_mmap_shared, so we'd

Ah, not quite so in what you last showed me, but no matter...

> be fine with merging them.

Great, thanks. No need for you to refresh me: if I do go ahead withmerging them (not my current priority), it'll be obvious from whateverpatch I show against -mm, what change you'd want to make to your tree.